AC 2011-1633: THE CHALLENGE OF RETURNING: TRANSITIONINGFROM AN ENGINEERING CAREER TO GRADUATE SCHOOL

Diane L Peters, University of Michigan

Diane L. Peters is a postdoctoral research fellow in mechanical engineering at the University of Michigan.She received her doctorate from the University of Michigan in 2010. Prior to beginning her doctoral work,she was employed as a design engineer in industry, working with equipment for the assembly automationand printing industries.

Shanna R. Daly, University of Michigan

Shanna Daly is an Assistant Research Scientist in the College of Engineering and the Design Science Pro-gram. Her research focuses on teaching and learning design and innovation strategies in interdisciplinarycontexts.

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2011

Page 22.1431.1

The Challenge of Returning: Transitioning from an EngineeringCareer to Graduate School

While many graduate students have progressed directly from their undergraduate education tograduate school with little or no time passing in between the two, many graduate students havenot followed this pathway. Because of these experiences, “returning” students are different inmany ways from “direct-pathway” students, and these differences can enrich the graduateexperience both for the returning students and for their fellow students. However, thesereturning students also face certain challenges that direct-pathway students do not. While thepublished literature on returning students has discussed some of their special skills andparticular challenges, there are many unanswered questions, particularly in regard to returningstudents in engineering and other STEM fields.

Introduction

While many graduate students in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)fields begin their graduate program immediately after completing a bachelor’s degree, there arealso many who enter the workforce and later pursue a graduate degree. In the larger populationof graduate students, statistics show that many are older; in 2001, only 43.4% of graduatestudents were in the age range of 22-291. Naturally, statistics will vary across fields, sincepathways vary by academic field, and in some fields, such as education, it is expected thatgraduate work will follow significant work experience. Furthermore, these statistics will varyover time, since a person’s educational decisions are affected by many external factors, includinggeneral economic conditions and the job market in a given field. In the mechanical engineeringdepartment of the University of Michigan, there are currently 57 students with a gap of threeyears or more between the completion of their undergraduate program and enrollment ingraduate school. Given that the University of Michigan graduates over 150 mechanicalengineering graduate students each year, this is a significant minority of the graduate population.Statistics on the exact length of time these students were in the workforce are not currentlyavailable. For the purposes of this study, we define returning students as those who have had agap of at least five years between completion of an undergraduate degree, and enrollment in agraduate program. This gap length is chosen to ensure that the returning students have spentenough time in the workforce to establish a professional identity.

While there are limited published statistics available about returners, there is a variety ofevidence that indicates they are a specific group worthy of study and attention. There areseminars and programs at national conferences for returners and those considering returning tograduate school. For example, the Society of Women Engineers (SWE) national conference hasincluded speakers on returning to graduate school in 20092 and 20103. Graduate schools hostgroups for returning students, i.e. the University of Michigan has a returning students group thatis open to returning students from all academic disciplines, and which hosts frequent networkingevents. There is a LinkedIn group for returning students, established in 2010, which has over 20members.

Research is also limited on returning students; however, a few studies have been published thatsupport the necessity of attending to this population of engineering graduate students4,5,6.

Page 22.1431.2

Recruitment and retention of diverse populations are often the focus of engineering educationresearch7; however, diversity is defined by gender and ethnicity, and often do not includediversity in age and professional experience. Just as an engineering population diverse in genderand ethnicity adds to the quality of engineering programs and the engineering workforce, agraduate student population diverse in age and experience also has much to add to theengineering university community. Furthermore, by encouraging diversity in age andexperience, universities may also realize an increase in gender diversity. In some STEM fields,such as computer science and engineering (CSE), women are disproportionately representedamong returning graduate students8, further adding to a diverse academic environment.

While the published literature on returning students has discussed some of their special skills andparticular challenges, there are many unanswered questions, particularly in regard to returningstudents in STEM fields. These questions include the decision-making processes of returningstudents and the types of guidance they seek when considering the pursuit of graduate education,academic, personal, and social issues they face in returning, and success strategies that enablereturning students to persist and succeed in graduate school. In this work, we addressed thefollowing research questions:

How do returners experience graduate school?What factors hinder or facilitate the success of returning students in graduate school?What similarities and differences do returning students perceive between themselves anddirect-pathway students?

The data from this study are useful in beginning to answer these questions, and in informingfuture studies. Furthermore, with such data, universities will be able to more effectively advisereturning students. This will allow the university to gain from the strengths returners bring, aswell as better equip returners to earn their graduate degrees.

BackgroundA significant number of graduate students have not followed a direct pathway from theirundergraduate education to graduate school. These students, referred to in various places as“older,” “mature,” “adult,” “non-traditional” or “returning” students, have had a variety of careerand life experiences between their undergraduate and graduate studies. These returning studentsdiffer from direct-pathway graduate students; they are often more motivated and mature9,10, moregoal-directed4,10, more aware of ethical issues9, have better teamwork skills9, have a high workethic10, and more skilled with a variety of tools and types of equipment10. They also utilize timemanagement strategies more effectively than younger students, and model effective studystrategies for direct-pathway students to emulate11. These characteristics can add to theclassroom environment and enrich the graduate experience for the student body as a whole9,10.

While these students have great potential to add the to classroom environment and supportdifferent kinds of learning, there is a lack of research on how to integrate these students into theclassroom environment in ways that allow teachers and research advisors to positively takeadvantage of the unique skills returners bring. Returning students have used the skills andinformation they learned as undergraduates in the workforce, and have seen how different classesrelate to each other. They have a broader view of their field than a student who has not had theirexperience, and may be able to better identify certain types of research questions for their

Page 22.1431.3

graduate work. Furthermore, upon completion of their graduate degree, they may be able to usethat experience to promote their work more effectively and impact the technical community.

However, they also face certain challenges that direct-pathway students do not. These challengesinclude the lack of information and mentoring available to direct-pathway students as theyprepare to move from their undergraduate program to a graduate program, personal and familyresponsibilities, fitting in to the graduate school community, and changes in learning style overtime.5,6,12 Often, returning students’ computer skills are less developed than those of direct-pathway students, and they may be less practiced in the mathematics required for graduatestudy10. They may feel that they do not “fit in” with younger students6, in part because ofpersonal and family responsibilities5,6. They also face challenges in admissions, funding, andpreferred working style5. Such challenges hamper the returning student’s ability to successfullyenter and complete graduate degree programs4,5,6.

Challenges for returners also include admission to a program, since some programs are lesswelcoming to returning students than others5. In some cases, metrics that accurately predictsuccess of direct-pathway graduate students are inaccurate. In particular, it has been found thatfor women over 24, the GRE underestimates academic success7. Thus, programs that relyheavily on GRE scores to determine admission to engineering graduate programs may notconsider potential returners. Those same potential returners are often the ones universities inviteto lead guest lectures and seminars, but their credentials may not map well to admissionsrequirements designed with direct-pathway students in mind.

Some schools, including the University of Michigan, have networking groups for variouspopulations of graduate students. One of these groups may be a returner students’ group;however, aside from such networking groups, there are no large-scale organized efforts to assistreturning students in dealing with these challenges, and due to the lack of research into suchstudents, it is currently unknown what types of programs might be most effective.

Research Methods

Participants. The study participants were identified through networking channels of theresearchers. The aim for participants in this case study was diversity in background,experiences, and years in the workforce currently at the University of Michigan. We selectedthree participants to include in this work so that we could discuss the depth of each of theirexperiences. Key demographic data for each participant is given in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic Data for Study Participants

Pseudonym Gender AgeYears in

workforce Current StatusAndrew Male 33 7 Third year Ph.D. studentBrenda Female 38 5 Post-doctoral Researcher

Catherine Female 41 18 First year Ph.D. student

We also found it useful to represent the pathways of each of the participants. Figure 1 representstheir current status and key academic and professional events prior to returning.

Page 22.1431.4

Educational and Career Pathway for Andrew

Masters’ andDoctorate (Physics/Applied Physics)

Work Experience:Teaching

Masters’Degree

(Education)

Undergraduate(Mathematics/

Physics)

Future Plans:Academic Career

Educational and Career Pathway for Brenda

Educational and Career Pathway for Catherine

Figure 1. Educational and Career Pathways for Participants

Data Collection. Data was collected by semi-structured interviews. The questions asked coveredthree primary topics. The first topic was the participant’s preparations to return to graduateschool; the second was the participant’s perception of the differences between him or her anddirect-pathway students; and the third was the participant’s views on what factors or strategiescontributed to his or her success in graduate school. The full interview protocol is given in theappendix to this paper. The interviews were approximately one hour long. Interviews wererecorded, and a transcript was produced after the completion of each interview.

Data Analysis. The data were analyzed for emergent themes using the constant comparativemethod13,14,15. The primary techniques used in order to identify themes were the identification ofrepetitions, and the study of similarities and differences both within and across interviews. First,each interview transcript was studied by itself in order to determine three to four themes thatwere strongest in that interview. Next, the interviews were analyzed as a collection. Six themeswere identified that appeared in at least two interviews.

Page 22.1431.5

The issue of researcher bias was of considerable importance in this study. The first authorreturned to school for a doctorate in mechanical engineering after a thirteen-year career inengineering, during which she obtained a masters’ degree on a part-time basis. As a member ofthe population for the study, it would be possible for her experiences and perspectives toinfluence the data analysis. In order to guard against the effects of this bias, the second author,who is not a member of the study population, analyzed the data independently. The results werethen compared to ensure that conclusions were drawn from the data, and not from the firstauthor’s experiences.

Results

Within-Case ResultsAndrew, in the third year of his doctoral program in mechanical engineering, had earned abachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, graduated with a masters’ degree in mechanicalengineering, and worked in private industry for approximately seven years before returning tograduate school. His primary reason for returning to school was to provide mobility into a newarea of research and development.

Three key themes emerged in his discussions of his experiences: the importance of non-technical skills developed while working, the frustrations and challenges of working in teamswith younger students, and navigating ways to relate work experiences in the classroom context.

Theme #1: Importance of non-technical skillsAndrew acknowledged how important technical skills were, but emphasized the development ofnon-technical skills such as communication, project management, and networking were criticalto his success, and a key differentiator between him and traditional students.

I feel a lot more confident about things like giving presentations or writing reports, likethose things don’t stress me out at all, whereas I see they stress out a lot of other, youknow, younger students, and for me it’s sort of second nature, it’s not a big deal. I feel alot more comfortable as far as knowing how to talk to other people sort of in anetworking way versus when I was getting my masters’, I didn’t really know what itmeant to do that or how to make these connections or how to further these connections,things like that. I feel like nobody tells you, and it’s sort of a learning process, so I feelvery, you know, more comfortable with that sort of thing.

The development of these skills was, furthermore, something that he perceived as happeningprimarily in the workplace, and not during his previous tenure as a student.

It’s more like how to deal with suppliers, and vendors, you know, how to get things done,if you will, that are outside of sort of the academic-technical core, you know, learningkinds of things. How to make things happen, you know. How to handle a project. Thingslike that. So, I’d say it’s mostly soft skills which are the things you tend not to get theexperience with in school.

Page 22.1431.6

The development of these skills, while critical to his success, presented certain challenges indealing with traditional students.

Theme #2: Frustrations and Challenges Working in Teams with Traditional StudentsAndrew felt disadvantaged as a returning student in his team interactions. He felt different fromthe group in his abilities and struggled with those interactions.

The strange, maybe, disadvantage that I noticed, but it depends on how you look at it,was that I found I had a harder time doing group projects, because I felt like the studentsthat I was working with tend to be immature.

He recognized that at times he may be assigning undue importance to some aspects of a project;however, he also felt that traditional students could focus on the wrong things as well.

I guess it’s in a variety of ways, whether it’s that they don’t really know how to interactwith people, they don’t know how to work in groups in a way that is sort of equitable toeverybody, they’re all very self-absorbed, self-focused, really focused on getting workdone no matter the quality, and trying to push work off onto other people, and not reallydoing a lot of listening, you know, these types of things. And so I found that veryfrustrating but then myself I had to realize that for me it was harder because I was used tosigning my name to work and that I had done and really worrying about the quality of itbecause it was, you know, something that was going to be implemented versus at least incoursework, when you’re doing work, and you’re doing a group project, it’s generally notsomething that ends up having any impact beyond that class and so I had to learn to let goof some of that – I mean honestly to do a worse job on things or like not care as much.So that was interesting. I wasn’t used to that. I wasn’t expecting that for sure…I find Idon’t have a lot of patience for things that I realize don’t matter, that they tend to put a lotof effort and focus into.

While Andrew saw the value of his skills and was able to use them in his academic work, the factthat he had a different view from his teammates of what was important in a project and how bestto go about doing the work caused friction within the team. This friction was a source offrustration to him, and a challenge that he had not anticipated when he was making the decisionto return to school.

Theme #3: Classroom Interactions of Returning StudentsAndrew acknowledged that he had something to add from his previous experiences that could bevaluable to the university learning environment, saying that “I have a lot more anecdotes to givethen maybe they do, you know, things like that.” However, he was more concerned that it couldbe a problem to have one student dominate a class discussions, thus, he tried to avoid doing so.

So – so I’ve been in classes before where you get returning students who are somewhatover exuberant about discussion within the classroom setting and that can get tiresome,and so I didn’t want to be that person, and so if I had something to offer I would offer it,if I thought that it would be useful and interesting for example. But, you know, I wasn’talways trying to be the one, you know, asking, you know five questions per class period,

Page 22.1431.7

and, you know, extensive, you know, deliberations about this or that or the other. “Well,in my experience, blah blah blah…” But I think there are times where, you know, specificsituations could come up, you know, and I could give a, you know, reasonably briefanecdote about it, and I think it was usually well received.

One of the reasons that Andrew was aware of the potential problems with dominating classdiscussions, and concerned about it, was because he had observed it in the past, particularly inthe case of returning students.

I think in a lot of classes I’ve had, where there are returning students, they tend to be themost talkative, and sometimes it’s fine, and sometimes it – it gets a little overbearing. SoI’ve had a lot of classes that way….And it wasn’t just me that had pointed this out, I’dheard other people talk about this too, like, oh, you know, the 45-year-old student who’sthe one who always goes on and on in class, and like, you know, it’s like we’re all justtrying to, you know, get out of the lecture, come on, you know like that kind of thing. Butin – you see a myriad of reasons why it happens, and I can understand some of them, andI think part of it is maybe they’re just – you know, they may not be aware of how muchthey are talking in the class, or even if they are maybe then, you know, maybe they thinkpeople appreciate it, maybe they don’t care, and they want to get their money’s worth.You know, there’s plenty of – plenty of reasons to do it, but that was sort of an interestingthing.

As a student who had obtained his master’s degree in a traditional pathway, and then returnedlater for a doctorate, Andrew was able to see both sides of this type of classroom interaction. Hewas able to see the value in bringing work experiences into the classroom, but also knew that itcould be a problem in some cases. By recognizing that this could be a problem, he was able toprovide the advantages of his experience in a way that he felt was constructive for the class andadded to the learning environment.

Brenda, female, age 38, had completed her masters’ degree in physics and a doctoral program inapplied physics as a returning student. She had earned a bachelor’s degree in mathematics andphysics, then a masters’ degree in education, then taught in both high school and college settingsfor five years before returning to graduate school. She is married, and has three children, two ofwhich were born prior to the completion of her doctorate. Her primary reason for returning toschool was the wish to be able to teach in a university setting.

Her experiences presented three primary themes. These were the importance of role models, therole of allies in her education, and the importance of self-efficacy.

Theme #1: Importance of role modelsBrenda actively sought out role models to help her persist through graduate school. She ratedrole models as being far more important than getting advice for her own situation and career..She felt that advice was not helpful since “I didn’t feel like they understood my constraintsanyway”, and because she felt that although many faculty members are experts in their field,“that doesn’t mean that they’re an expert in the way that you want to become an expert.” As aprofessional and a mother, she felt a need for particular role models – women who had

Page 22.1431.8

successfully pursued a career and raised children. Her role models included both famous womenscientists, such as Marie Curie, and currently living successful women with children.

I was going down the halls of all these women physicists, and I decided to read abiography on Marie Curie. And she had two children, and she did not get her Ph.D. untilshe was 35, so that became my goal. I was going to have my Ph.D. when I was 35, and Idid finish that, had my Ph.D. at 35. She had two children; I had two children when Ifinished my Ph.D….I sought out role models who have been successful mothers andcareers, including the first woman who was prime minister in Norway, Dr. GroBrundtland, who coined the sustainable definition – sustainability definition thateverybody uses. She was I think the founder and first director of the World HealthOrganization, and I got to talk to her about her having five kids and what she did whenshe had five kids to still be successful, and I talked to lots of other women…I have toseek role models. Role models are very different than advice.

By seeking out role models, Brenda was able to see that she could be successful, and choosefrom those models in finding ways to navigate her own personal and professional challenges.The ability to meet some of her role models and talk with them was useful to her, althoughsimply reading about women who were successful as both mothers and professionals was alsohelpful.

Theme #2: The Role of AlliesIn addition to role models, Brenda felt that allies were a key to success. While she did not seekout advice on what to do, or how to do it, she did feel the need for people who supported her inher efforts and helped her to accomplish her own goals and objectives. When asked what weresome of the things that contributed to her success, she explicitly stated, “Finding allies. Findingpeople who would support me and stand up politically for me.” Her entry to graduate school waspossible because of the allies she formed:

[T]he department chair said, “Everyone rejected you, but I have veto power.” And I knewthey were going to reject me, so I came with like a many-page document saying why Ideserved or would not disappoint him. So my first semester I got all A’s and I gave it tohim, I said I will not disappoint you. And he was just like blown away because one of hisbest students didn’t get all A’s.

In particular, when pursuing a research program that was unconventional, she found that allieswere useful in gaining funding to do her work the way she wanted to do it when others doubtedthat it would lead to the types of publications that they valued.

And luckily there were a group of people who stood up, who said even if it’s not going tobecome a research paper, we should spend a certain point zero zero zero zero zero zeroone percent of our budget on something that might potentially have the possibility ofbecoming a research paper because it’s really important stuff. And so I had enoughpeople backing me that – that that was good. P

age 22.1431.9

Because she recognized the importance of allies, Brenda devoted considerable time to buildingalliances. She has learned how to explain the importance of her work to potential allies, and howto recognize who is in a position to serve in this role. This allowed her to pursue a researchprogram that she designed and establish her own professional identity as a researcher.

Theme #3: The Importance of Believing in HerselfThe third major theme in Brenda’s interview was the importance of believing in herself. Brendafaced a significant number of people in various areas of her life who doubted her ability tosucceed, and who often told her so. In order to successfully complete her degree, she had tomaintain a belief that they were wrong and that she was capable of success.

… it was very difficult for my family to think of me as smart enough to get a Ph.D. Infact, when I first turned in some of my homeworks I typed everything up, mainly justbecause I wanted to be able to use it for future reference so I typed it up and I like typingthings up, it’s easier to edit later on, and some of my family members would see thesehomeworks that were like fifteen pages long in like quantum mechanics and they’d belike, “Do you really understand that?” and I would say yes, but they didn’t see me assomeone who was able to do that, so I think along the way I had to believe in myselfwhen no one else did.

Prior to the completion of her degree, she discussed her work with a female professor whoexplicitly told her that “… you’re a mother, and mothers can’t be professors …”. Whenchallenged with information about the student’s role models who had combined academiccareers and children, she was told, “I still don’t think you’re going to be successful.” Shesummarized her attitude towards other people’s doubts as, “I think that – that it’s important tohave people guide you along the way, but you have to believe in yourself.”

Catherine is female, age 41, and in the first year of a doctoral program in Design Science. Shehad earned a bachelor’s degree in aerospace engineering, then went to work in a governmentresearch position. During her working career, she obtained a masters’ degree in aerospaceengineering on a part-time basis. After working for approximately 18 years, she took a leave ofabsence to begin her doctorate. She is divorced, and has one child. Her primary reason forreturning to school was the wish to learn something that she felt would be of value in her existingcareer and position.

Her experiences presented four primary themes. These were the need to progress rather thanregress in a doctoral program, the wish to broaden her perspective, an emphasis on understandingas opposed to simply knowing, and the importance of family and community.

Theme #1: Emphasis on Progress, Not RegressAs a professional who had been working for a significant time period, she felt that manygraduate schools wanted to erase or ignore her experience, and this presented a problem. Shewanted to learn new things, but felt the need to start from where she is now, not where she was inthe early stages of her career. P

age 22.1431.10

I needed a place that would respect what I brought to the program as a returning graduatestudent. A school that seemed to say, you know what, I don’t care what you know, you’regoing to be treated like you’re a 22-year-old and, you know, and there’s no advantagewhatsoever to what you bring, you’ll be grunt labor and you’ll be my whipping child…You know, I’ll make you do all my grunt work and write my papers for me for the nextseveral years – was not a place that was going to be conducive for me. It really wasn’t.And so I needed a school that I felt like I could grow in where I would not regress, but Iwould progress…

In particular, she was concerned with wasting time re-learning things she had known once, whichwould take away time that she wanted to spend on learning new things and advancing herresearch. She had been warned by many others, who had considered returning to school, but haddecided against it, because of what they had forgotten.

I would spend 80% of my time in grad school re-proving to some professor that I knewhow to do a triple integral, run Matlab code, run SPSS, and 20 – it would exhaust mytime there, and I would only have a small fraction of that time to actually advance andgrow from there…

This was a key theme in her decision both to return to school, and in her choice of where to goand what type of program to pursue.

I looked for a program that built on what I have already and that I could bring somethingnew that we don’t have, so I was looking for a program that would do that…I looked fora program that would allow me to expand upon what I already have, not re-learn what Ialready knew.

In the course of her decision process, Catherine ruled out many potential universities based onthat criterion. If she felt that she would be treated as if she were a recent bachelor’s degreegraduate and would have to re-learn significant amounts of material, she declined to considerthat university any further.

Theme #2: Broadening of PerspectiveCatherine was actively engaged in research in her job. She saw the value of deep technicalknowledge, and worked among many people who had such expertise in a particular field, but didnot feel that this fit her own goals and objectives. This was a key reason why she chose topursue a degree program that was fundamentally multidisciplinary in nature, and was one of thefactors that influenced her choice of school.

My goals in getting this particular degree were not to go further into the fields I wasalready in. I already had two degrees in aerospace engineering. Traditionally most peoplego back and get their third degree in the same thing their first two degrees were in, and Iwanted to expand my horizons, I wanted to bring something to aerospace that I did notbelieve there was sufficient expertise in. So I went looking for a way to broaden asopposed to narrow my perspectives, and bringing a new perspective in…the assumptionwas you were coming to go narrower and deeper and I was not coming for that. I was

Page 22.1431.11

wanting to broaden… so I wanted a place where I could talk to the other people and learnsomething. My actual GPA didn’t matter to me, to be honest with you. It was theopportunity to talk with some of the best in this field and engage.

Catherine felt that this broadening of perspective was extremely important for what she hoped toaccomplish; while she was intellectually capable of studying a narrow area very deeply, this didnot serve her purposes in pursuing a graduate degree. Her work is multi-disciplinary in nature,and her job requires a broad, holistic view of technical problems.

Theme #3: Importance of Understanding Rather than KnowingOne of the key distinctions that Catherine made between her current state of knowledge and heryounger self, and between herself and the younger students around her, was the differencebetween knowing something and truly understanding it. She considered that someone knowssomething if they can solve problems and demonstrate proficiency in a class, but said that theymight not understand it on a deep and fundamental level

[W]e all know that you can get an A or a B in a class and not understand it. You canknow it, but not understand it…And as a practicing engineer I know you have to KNOWit, you have to understand it fundamentally in order to use it in practice. So my goals noware to understand…you know that you need to know it. Period. And get it in your headand understand it. Fundamentally. So you can change any knob and understand what’sgoing on.

Catherine recognizes that, in the workforce, engineers face problems that they never explicitlylearned to solve in their coursework. By understanding material thoroughly, they are able toapply concepts to situations far outside of anything that they have ever encountered before, andsolve a wide range of important problems.

Theme #4: Importance of Family and CommunityA fourth theme, and another differentiator between her life and that of a direct-pathway graduatestudent, is the importance of family and community. She described younger students’ lives asbeing “singular”, while an older person such as herself has a more complex life, with moredemands on her time and attention. A part of this was due to her son, but she had other outsideinterests that are not necessarily dependent on having a child.

And now, as a 41-year-old, as a mom, it is all about my family, and helping them andhelping us grow together and be healthy, and the community and the church and thebroader society overall. Very different perspective. And saving, and buying and all thosethings, everything is very – I’m much more mature, I’m much more concerned aboutwhat’s happening around me, not just what’s happening with me…I’m a mom, which is afull-time job by itself. You know, I have, now, I’m in the in-between generation as theycall it, I have parents that are elderly, that I want to make sure are well and safe, and so Ispend some emotional energy checking on them. I have nieces and nephews that needand want mentoring as well, that I can’t just ignore. And so, so between my extendedfamily and my immediate family that requires time. Real, critical time that’s way moreimportant than anything I do at the university…I needed to come to a simpler, smaller

Page 22.1431.12

house which is exactly what I did. But I still wanted some of the other things that you getfrom living in a community, like I wanted to have neighbors that were involved, not justat the university but in the community because I was living in a community, an adult, ifthat makes any sense.

Her attitude towards these parts of her life was that, while they do take time away from researchand from her job, they are important and worthwhile parts of life. The need to spend time onnon-research activities is not a burden but a source of perspective, and a part of a rich adult life.

Across-Case ResultsAfter performing a thematic analysis of each interview by itself, the interviews were studied as aset. A thematic analysis of the collection yielded six themes that appeared in at least two of thethree interviews, with most of these themes manifest in all three.

Common Theme #1: Definite Goal for the ReturnEach of the participants had a different goal that led them to enroll in graduate school; however,each did have a very definite and personally significant goal. All of them acknowledged that, foryounger students, it could be seen as the logical next step in a progression. For them, however, itwas a break in the usual life pattern, and required a strong motivation to make this decision.

Andrew stated that he had always had it in his mind that he might someday return for a Ph.D.,and the issue was one of timing. He made the decision to do so when he felt it would allow himto move into new research areas that interested him.

Now at the time I decided to come back, part of the reason was that I was in R&D and ithad been pointed out to me that getting a Ph.D. would be more useful as far as mobilitywithin an R&D environment, as well as the particular company I was working for, theirfocus was less interesting for me, or their application and the tasks that were potentiallyavailable, but to make sort of a sideways move in R&D can be difficult if you don’t haveexperience in a given area, and so I had an idea of the kind of research I wanted to do andso I figured if I could go back to school and do that research that would be a way to getinto that area.

This goal contributed to a stronger feeling of engagement with the program than he hadpreviously felt, when working toward his masters’ degree, although he also commented thatmaintaining that focus was not always easy.

I definitely had a better focus, coming back, than I did when I was doing my master’s, Ihad a lot more idea of, you know, this is what I want to accomplish versus I’m doing thisbecause it’s the next step kind of thing.…one of the advantages of being a returningstudent, I thought, was – and I’ve heard other people talk about this – is the focus youhave, and sort of the drive, and you – you tend to know more of what you want, and havea clear picture of how to get it, or at least how to find out how to get it, that type of thing.But I found that it can be, like, after being here for two years, I find some of that focushas been lost. And so, that’s been challenging.

Page 22.1431.13

Brenda began a graduate program because she had decided that she wanted to teach at thecollege level, and needed to have the credentials to do so.

I wanted to be able to go back and actually teach at St. Mary’s College and do this kindof work in Africa…

In her case, she had not previously considered pursuing a Ph.D. She described herself as being“pretty hostile” to the idea. However, once she began the degree, she had a strong sense ofpurpose.

…you’re making sacrifices and you’re not going to play around, this isn’t like, you know,just something that you do because it’s the next stage of life. No, it’s something that youdo no one else understands. And that’s crazy, and so you better have some – you betternot mess it up. You know, there – there are just higher stakes, you know. It seems like it,anyway.

Like Andrew, her motivation had not been strong at all times. At least once, she consideredquitting the program, but was encouraged by others to continue; “they’re like…you can’t justwalk away, especially when there’s no reason for you to walk away.”

Catherine was motivated to begin her Ph.D. by a professional and intellectual need, which shedescribed as follows.

I wanted to bring something to aerospace that I did not believe there was sufficientexpertise in. So I went looking for a way to broaden as opposed to narrow myperspectives, and bringing a new perspective in…my motivation was more to learnsomething new, to expand my horizons and to grow personally, and if that opened doorsprofessionally, that was icing on the cake.

As she is in the early stages of her program, it is not yet known if she will experience the samemotivational challenges as the other two students interviewed.

All three participants had definite goals that produced strong motivations for their return toschool. These goals were a product of their individual interests and priorities, as well as thediffering paths they had taken in their careers.

Common Theme #2: Decision Process Focus on PeopleAll three participants, once they had made the decision to return to school, focused their decisionprocesses specifically around the advisor with whom they would work. Andrew and Brendaonly considered the University of Michigan, while Catherine conducted a wide-ranginginternational search, but still focused a major portion of the decision around the choice ofadvisor.

Andrew considered only the University of Michigan, but spoke with a number of differentprofessors to gather information.

Page 22.1431.14

Yes, I only looked at U of M and mainly it was because I wanted to work with mymaster’s advisor… and I talked to him and he was interested in having me come back andhaving me do my Ph.D. and working on the project I wanted to work on, so for all thosereasons it made sense. … I talked to some other people from U of M because initially Iwas looking at maybe doing a joint degree between School of Natural Resources, so Italked to some people down there, to see what kind of projects they were working on, youknow, whether they could be an advisor, things like that. So basically I just set upmeetings with various professors that I already knew about or at least knew some of theirwork and was interested in and talked to them before coming.

Brenda chose the University of Michigan because of a family-related need to stay in the area, butconsidered carefully who she would work with. She discussed her potential research programextensively, and worked with a professor for a year prior to applying for the Ph.D. program.

So I worked with a professor for a year… got to know the whole department, did kind ofpre-research, and so when I went to go apply they knew who I was, they had read myNSF application, and I kind of went in a back door.

Catherine performed an international search, since she was able to relocate temporarily for theright program. She began by looking at schools’ websites, programs, and requirements, but thecritical factors in her decision were related to the people at those schools.

Then I called some schools. And then I called some colleagues, and – many colleagues,actually. And that led to some critical insight… So I called another government programmanager, a couple of them, they asked me to call a couple other places, and I got someincredible insight and some – some – I headed down some paths that I may not haveheaded down as strongly without that insight…I asked questions about who these peoplewere. And one of my decisions was, who are these advisors? How do they treat theirstudents? Are they – do they respectfully engage them, and can I grow with this person,can I work with this person?

In all cases, the participants focused exclusively on the people in the department, particularly onthe advisor for whom they would be working. They focused on their potential advisors both asscholars and as people. Each looked for an advisor who would value the work they wanted to doon a technical level, and who would respect their contributions.

Common Theme #3: Significance of ResearchAll of the students interviewed had a very definite sense that research is far more important thancoursework in their doctoral program, and each had a definite sense for what about their researchwas important. Andrew had initially planned to refresh his skills with engineering software, suchas Matlab, but in the end spent his time differently in the preparation to return to school.

I spent a lot of work researching, like doing reading on my research topic that I wanted toresearch, because that was what was important to me, it wasn’t, you know, taking moreclasses and things like that, it was the research.

Page 22.1431.15

As previously stated, Brenda began working with a professor prior to applying for the doctoralprogram. While she did well in her coursework, she felt that it was not as important as herresearch, which she described as “really important stuff”. One of the things that she valued mostwas that “I had the freedom to make my Ph.D. be anything I wanted.”

Catherine put it even more strongly.

I’m not doing this just to get a grade. I’m doing this because it matters. I want tounderstand what I’m learning so I can make a difference in this world.

Each of the participants mentioned coursework, and recognized that it was an important part ofthe educational process. Brenda specifically mentioned getting A’s in all her courses, and allthree participants spoke about their class projects and challenges in the classroom. However,they focused more strongly on the research component of the doctorate, and felt that it was by farthe most significant part of their educational experience.

Common Theme #4: Challenges with Group ProjectsAll three participants faced certain difficulties in group projects. In the case of Andrew, this wasa primary theme of his interview. While it did not feature as strongly in the other interviews, itwas present. Group projects can present certain challenges, but some of the challenges thesestudents faced were due to their different attitudes and different stage of life. In the case ofAndrew, his difficulties stemmed from a lack of patience with what he saw as other students’immaturity.

I think I have a better time seeing the long view of things than maybe they do and so it’shard for me to say, you know, I can’t continue to say, that doesn’t matter, that’s not whatwe need to focus on. Like, I find myself constantly wanting to lead the group because Ifeel like it’s poorly organized, and yeah, just sort of dis – you know, in a bit of chaos andso I feel like – and I mean that’s probably a pretty common thing, but, you know, nothaving the patience for that made me want to have a tendency to lead the group, I guess.

Brenda faced significant logistical difficulties because she is a mother, and that placedconstraints on when she could be on campus to work with others.

I mean, if someone wants to work with me, they have to come to my house, because ifI’m going to do homework with them or a project with them – I mean, I did tons ofprojects in the basement of my house… And people were willing to do that, you know,it’s – and so, one of the challenges that I’ve faced was not necessarily returning student,but because I was returning as a mother. You know, that posed a lot of extra constraintsthat other people didn’t have. And that was a challenge, you know, it was a challenge forhow people viewed me, they viewed me as a mother…

However, the challenges she faced went beyond the logistics imposed by parenthood. Somestudents appeared to view her differently, and this caused some friction in group interactions. P

age 22.1431.16

I mean, I was on this one group project and they wrote messages in the code, ‘Oh, mama,do you think this is good enough?’, or whatever they said. I’m exaggerating a little. Butthere were all these comments about being a mother, and very very sarcastic comments inthe Matlab code. And you know, one said to me, ‘Oh, I feel sorry for your husband.’

Catherine did not face the same type of sarcastic comments from fellow group members, but shedid need to deal with similar logistic issues imposed by motherhood.

So my project group, for example, for one of my classes will say, hey, let’s meet tonight,and I’m like, I have to get a babysitter. I can’t just plan it like that. And they don’tunderstand that, they don’t plan far enough ahead, they want to plan meetings a day ortwo ahead of time, and when I ask for longer than that they look at me like I’m crazy.

Like Andrew, Catherine felt somewhat frustrated with the skills of her teammates. Not havingbeen in the workplace, direct pathway students are less skilled and less practiced in some aspectsof teaming, and she spent much of her time trying to remedy this lack.

I’m spending a lot of the time in my current class mentoring the undergrads. Not that I’mnot learning something, again, but most of them don’t know how to collect data, where tofind the data, once they get it all they get all confused about how to use it, how to write apaper, how to present, so I’m spending hours and hours and hours of time coaching andmentoring, which is not advancing my degree one iota.

Part of the participants’ frustration stemmed from the lack of understanding they got from direct-pathway students. While each participant could remember when they were younger and morelike traditional students, the students with whom they worked could not understand their point ofview. In the cases of Brenda and Catherine, in particular, they have family responsibilities thatare non-negotiable. This can create conflicts, since they may not be able to adapt to the workingsof the group.

Common Theme #5: Ability to Meet Traditional Students on Common GroundWhile working with traditional students was frustrating at times for all three participants, they allsaw some ways that they could relate to these students could identify some common ground.They cited the learning experience, though the emphasis was slightly different in each case.Andrew spoke of the classroom experience and its challenges.

[W]e’re all generally all learning something new in a given class, or something like that.We, you know, we have the same deliverables we have to deal with, we have the same,you know, stresses about getting a project done, or you know, learning how to use a newsoftware, or whatever…

For Brenda, the intellectual interest was the key area of common ground. She spoke of theinspiration that students of all ages and life stages feel, and how that allowed her to relate in apositive way to younger students. P

age 22.1431.17

I think in general the commonality is the overall enthusiasm for doing things that most ofthe world thinks is boring. That’s a good commonality. I mean, you – when you go intothis area, you really – most people go into it because they’re interested in it. Some peoplego into it because it’s easy for them. But most people have some sort of spark ofinspiration, and so that – especially if you can focus discussions around the spark of – ofinspiration then you can find a lot in common with young people because young peopleoften are very easily inspired, and they will spend a lot of time on research projects thatthey’re inspired by.

Catherine also focused on intellectual interest, but with an emphasis on their curiosity and on herinteractions with them.

Desire to learn. What I really love about, particularly I think that’s the difference betweenmaster’s and Ph.D. students, the Ph.D. students are on a mission, they’re more dedicatedthan the masters’ students, I’d say, and I love the desire to learn, and that – they – they –they ask good questions, they’re curious like I am, they are tenacious about wanting tofind out more about a certain subject, they are not your undergrads that are kind of, hey,I’m just here cause mom and dad said I needed to be here. They’re much different thanthat, and so I have thoroughly enjoyed the intellectual stimulation of interacting with theother masters’ and Ph.D. students, they are a different breed of students than theundergrads, and I have found the intellectual Q&A to be fascinating.

Despite the challenges that Andrew, Brenda and Catherine faced in working with traditionalstudents, they all felt that they are part of an intellectual community. This feeling of communityhelped them to relate to classmates, to feel a part of the university environment, and was one ofthe benefits they received in pursuing a graduate degree.

Common Theme #6: Life Outside of SchoolThe final common theme is that of life outside of school. While this was a stronger theme forBrenda and Catherine, who are parents, it did appear in Andrew’s interview as well. Andrew,who was the youngest of the three, indicated that he had more friends from outside of schoolthan was the case when he was younger and needed to balance that part of his life with school.

I think I tend to be friends with a wider group of people now than I was then but itdoesn’t make it strange for me to be friends with, you know, current grad students whoare younger…Yeah, maybe I have a few more former work friends, or community friendswho aren’t in school, things like that.

For Brenda, her status as a mother significantly affected her life, and requires time. This affectedher ability to spend time on campus working on research, and also affected her social life.

…a lot of people have more free time than I do, and it’s not because I’m coming back,it’s because I’m a mother. As a mother, I don’t have free time, you know.

For Catherine, this was a primary theme, as stated previously. She discussed her family, thecommunity, and her focus as an adult who is used to living in a broader community.

Page 22.1431.18

And now, as a 41-year-old, as a mom, it is all about my family, and helping them andhelping us grow together and be healthy, and the community and the church and thebroader society overall. Very different perspective. And saving, and buying and all thosethings, everything is very – I’m much more mature, I’m much more concerned aboutwhat’s happening around me, not just what’s happening with me.

All three of the study participants had a social life that extended beyond the university. They hadfriends among their fellow students, but they valued friendships with other people who were notassociated with the university. Furthermore, Brenda and Catherine, as parents, had a social circlewhich included other parents in the community. These additional social contacts were importantto them, and were a major part of their lives.

DiscussionThis study sought to understand the experiences of returning students, the factors that hinder orfacilitate their success, and their perceived similarities and differences to “direct-pathway”graduate students. In previous work2, the challenges faced by returning students were groupedinto five categories: admissions issues, academic challenges, family and personal issues,financial concerns, and other issues. Here, we will use a modified version of this grouping; ourorganizational scheme, however, focuses on aspects of returners’ identities as opposed to thetypes of issues they face. This shift in categorization was due to the focus of the themes thatemerged in this work. The distribution of the themes into these categorizes are represented inFigure 2.

Identity as a Student

Focus on:ResearchDeeper understanding of materialNon-technical skills

Identity as a Scholar

Focus on:Progress, rather than regressBroadening of perspectiveSelf-efficacyRole models

Identity as a Community of Students

Focus on:Classroom interactionsTeamworkFinding alliesCommon ground with direct-pathwaystudents

Identity as a Whole Person

Focus on:Wide range of friendsFamily membersCommunity

Identity in Transition:Professional to Student

Formulation of a goal for returnDecision process for the return

Figure 2. Categories of Themes

Identity in Transition.In this study, all of the participants had a definite goal for their return to graduate school, and allof them focused their pre-admission activities on the choice of an advisor, rather than the school

Page 22.1431.19

itself. Previous studies of adult students at various different educational levels and institutionshave shown that adult learners are more goal-oriented than direct-pathway students. Knowlesreports that “Adults are motivated to learn as they experience needs and interests that learningwill satisfy”12. This was evident with the participants in this study. Each one of them indicated aneed they had in their career or personal goals that drew them back to graduate school. Thiscontrasts with the general population of students, some of whom may see graduate school as a“default” option. One study surveyed approximately 1400 graduate students, and reported that23% indicated that at least part of the reason they began doctoral study was that they were not“able to think of anything better to do”.16

Identity as a StudentAs the participants each developed an identity as a graduate student, they formed strong views onwhat aspects of their graduate school experience would be important to their success andsatisfaction with their education. These aspects included the importance of non-technical skills,the importance of research, and gaining a deep and fundamental understanding of the materiallearned. In this context, participants discussed the differences they noticed between themselvesand direct-pathway graduate students. For example, Catherine acknowledged that her computersoftware skills in programs such as Matlab were not as current as the direct-pathway students;however, she also believed that it did not matter for her career. In her workplace, Matlab codingwas important, however, in her position, other things had greater importance, such as the abilityto manage projects with hundreds of engineers.

The three participants in this study also noted that in the workplace, the importance of differenttypes of skills seemed to shift. While technical skills are necessary for success both in schooland in engineering employment, they were not the only skills necessary for success as a workingengineer. These skills include problem-solving, teamwork, managing projects and work tasks,and dealing with change17,18. While some efforts are made to teach these skills to engineeringstudents, it is widely acknowledged that this is challenging17, and it is reasonable to believe thatfurther practice in the workplace will result in improvement in these skills. It does however,present a challenge for returning students who have had time and experience in the workplace todevelop these skills. It also prompts a question about the goals of graduate programs, andmeeting the needs of diverse students.

Catherine, who had been in the workforce the longest, exemplified the difference between anovice and an expert in her wish to truly understand material deeply and fundamentally, and notsimply know it. This understanding, which she defined as being able to apply it to new,unfamiliar situations, is a key differentiator between an experienced engineer and a novice19.

Identity as a Community of StudentsCatherine stated that part of the reason she returned to graduate school was to engageintellectually with others. While Andrew and Brenda did not make such a statement, all threeparticipants did see themselves as part of a community of students. Within this category, theparticipants focused on classroom interactions, teamwork, finding allies, and finding commonground with direct-pathway students. P

age 22.1431.20

Group dynamics within student teams were particularly prominent in the discussions by thestudy participants. Teamwork is known to present significant challenges for many students. Inparticular, differences in goals and expectations can present problems in the functioning of ateam. While the development of teamwork and project management skills on the part of all teammembers would be beneficial, if only one team member has highly developed teamwork skills,they can become frustrated with their teammates20,21. The participants in this study experiencedthese types of frustrations, as they had become acclimated to successful teams in their workplaceand felt that their fellow graduate students had not yet achieved as successful teamwork skills asthey had.

Clearly, one of the differences between direct-pathway students and those who return to schoolafter working is the experiences that the latter have had while working. Ideally, theseexperiences should add to their classroom experience, and to that of others, functioning as “theadult learner’s living textbook”22. However, as discussed by Andrew, this is not always the case.At times, the returning student’s contributions are not seen as being valuable by others. Thispresents an opportunity for instructors; if an instructor is aware of the availability of this “livingtextbook”, he or she can integrate it into the course and make use of a valuable resource withoutdisrupting the flow of the class.

While the participants did encounter challenges in establishing themselves as part of the studentcommunity, all were able to integrate into the student community. A key factor in theirintegration with direct-pathway students was the ability to find common ground with thosestudents. While the participants all perceived significant differences between themselves anddirect-pathway students, these differences did not create a gap that could not be bridged. In allthree cases, they perceived common experiences and shared passions that did, in fact, allow themto be part of a community of students.

Identity as a Scholar

As the participants began their graduate work, they each established an identity as a scholar, inaddition to their identity as a student. The word scholar is representative of their life-longpursuit of learning, while the word student represents the short period of time the participants aregraduate students. The key themes involved in establishing an identity as a scholar were theimportance of progressing rather than regressing, broadening of perspective, self-efficacy, andfinding role models. Brenda, in particular, discussed self-efficacy rather extensively, as shespoke of the need to believe in herself. Self-efficacy has been shown to be important in thepersistence and success of students, particularly women, in graduate school.23

Role models are important in encouraging students, particularly minorities and women, to pursuesuccessful careers in STEM fields24,25,26. This was a key theme in Brenda’s experiences. Shewas consciously aware of the importance of role models, and of her need to seek them out. Sheselected role models who were both scholars and mothers, and who she could look to forexamples of how to successfully balance those two roles.

Page 22.1431.21

Identity as a Whole PersonThis category of themes represents the responsibilities, interests, and roles the participants hadoutside of graduate school. The discussions were primarily centered on the participants’ roles asa responsible family member.

Family issues were a major concern for two participants in particular, Brenda and Catherine.Both of them are mothers, and needed to balance their academics with family responsibilities.They felt the culture of the university had expectations of late night work hours, and this was notmanageable with their lives. Similar concerns have been reported in other studies of graduatestudents who were balancing academics and raising children. In particular, a study of womenwho had returned to graduate school to pursue psychology doctoral programs showed that beingin school strains their family relationships27. This was a significant concern for both Brenda andCatherine. In addition to the logistical issues involved with parenthood, their status as mothershas influenced how others see them. Being a mother was challenging to Brenda as she felt thather group members viewed her differently. In her view, group members showed a lack ofrespect and failed to take her seriously because they saw her as a mother rather than a fellowstudent. This type of attitude towards mothers has been seen in a number of studies; mothers areseen as less competent than non-mothers with the same qualifications28,29.

While a significant challenge, both participants found that the University of Michigan’sresources for graduate student parents were helpful to them. These resources included a Centerfor the Education of Women, which provided child-care assistance to Brenda, and a parent’sgroup, which assisted Catherine in finding community resources. Other studies have revealedthat family and community support systems are crucial to the success of under-representedstudents30 .

Future work will include the consideration of ways in which schools may both accommodatereturning students, and take advantage of their background. Two themes in particular, classroominteractions and the desire for a deeper understanding of the material, demonstrate questions thatexist about how to best support diverse students in the classroom. The questions of how aprofessor can utilize the returners’ experiences in their course, and how to provide them with theopportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the course material, have not yet been answered.Universities may also be able to facilitate the integration of returners into the student community.Some programs that might accomplish this integration could include pairing them with direct-pathway students in their field of study who are more familiar with current software at theuniversity, having them give guest lectures on their experiences, or establishing networking andsupport groups within the university community. By implementing such initiatives, universitieswould be able to support a group that contributes to a diverse graduate population and gain thebenefit of their wide-ranging talents and experiences.

Conclusions

Many studies in engineering education research focus on the ways programs can transform tobetter support diversity. This study draws attention to an under-studied under-represented group,that of returning students. The experiences of three people who returned to school for a graduatedegree after spending at least five years in the workforce were considered. Each person had a

Page 22.1431.22

unique history and life situation, and therefore, each case study gave rise to different themes.However, there were also many common themes. By understanding the unique characteristics ofthis population of students, universities will be better equipped to draw on their experience tobenefit the returners and the student population as a whole.

Bibliography

1 “Digest of Education Statistics 2001”, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement.

2Peters, D. L. and Lucietto, A. M. “Success and Challenges as a Returning Student.” SWE National Conference,Long Beach, CA, October 2009.

3Vaicik, M. and Brenneman, K. “Back to School.” SWE National Conference, Orlando, FL, November 2010.

4 MacFadgen, L. (2008). “Mature Students in the Persistence Puzzle: An Exploration of the Factors that Contributeto Mature Students' Health, Learning, and Retention in Post-Secondary Education”, Canadian Council on Learning.

5 Schilling, W. (2008). “Issues Effecting Doctoral Students Returning to Engineering Education FollowingExtensive Industrial Experience”, American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition,Pittsburgh, PA.

6 Gardner, S. K. (2008). "Fitting the Mold of Graduate School: A Qualitative Study of Socialization in DoctoralEducation." Innovations in Higher Education 33, 125-138.

7 Purdy, C. and Washburn, M. (2005). “Diversity in Engineering Education - What are the Perceived Issues?”American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, OR.

8 Cuny, J. and Aspray, W. (2000) “Recruitment and Retention of Women Graduate Students in Computer Scienceand Engineering”. Computing Research Association: Committee on the Status of Women in Computing Research.

9 Hofinger, R. J. and Feldmann, L. J. (2001). “The Role of the Adult Student in the Classroom”. American Societyfor Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Albuquerque, NM.

10 Prusak, Z. (1999). “Learning Environment in Engineering Technology with a High Percentage of Non-TraditionalStudents”. American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Charlotte, NC.

11 Richardson, J. T. E. and King, E. (1998). “Adult Students in Higher Education: Burden or Boon?” Journal ofHigher Education 69:1, 65-88.

12Knowles, M., The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species, 2nd edition, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, TX, 1973.

13 Ryan, G. W. and Bernard, H. R. (2003) “Techniques to Identify Themes”. Field Methods 15:1, 85-109.

14 Glaser, BG. and Strauss, AL. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

15 Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

16 Anderson, M. S. and Swazey, J. P. (1998) “Reflections on the Graduate Student Experience: An Overview”. NewDirections for Higher Education, no. 101, 3-13.

Page 22.1431.23

17 Woods, D. R., Felder, R. M., Rugarcia, A., and Stice, J. E. (2000) “The Future of Engineering Education III.Developing Critical Skills” Chemical Engineering Education, 34:2, 108–117.

18 National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century.Washington, DC: National Academy of Engineering.

19 Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., and Cocking, R. R. (1999). “How experts differ from novices”. In How peoplelearn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

20 Tonso, K. L. (2006) “Teams that work: Campus culture, engineer identity, and social interactions”. Journal ofEngineering Education 1(1) 1-13.

21 Oakley, B., Felder, R., Brent, R., and Elhajj, I. (2004). “Turning Student Groups intoEffective Teams”. Journal of Student-Centered Learning. 2(1). 9-34.

22Lindeman, E.C., The Meaning of Adult Education, New Republic, New York, NY, 1926.

23 Rittmayer, A. and Beier, M. (2010). “Self-efficacy in STEM”. In Bogue, B., & Cady, E., Olio: Research onWomen in Science & Engineering, 23-43.

24 Nauta, M. M., Epperson, D. L., and Kahn, J. H. (1998) “A Multiple-Groups Analysis of Predictors of HigherLevel Career Aspirations Among Women in Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Majors”. Journal ofCounseling Psychology 45(4), 483-496.

25 Levinson, W., Kaufman, K., Clark, B., and Tolle, S. W. (1991) “Mentors and Role Models for Women inAcademic Medicine”. Western Journal of Medicine, 154(4), 423-426

26 Roberts, E. S., Kassianidou, M. and Irani, L. (2002) “Encouraging Women in Computer Science”. CM SIGCSEBulletin - Women and Computing, 34(2), 84-88.

27 Padula, M. A. and Miller, D. L. (1999) “Understanding Graduate Women’s Reentry Experiences: Case Studies ofFour Psychology Doctoral Students in a Midwestern University”. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 327-343.

28 Heilman, M. E. and Okimoto, T.G. (2008). “Motherhood: A potential source of bias in employmentdecisions”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 189-198.

29 Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., and Glick, P. (2004). “When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn’t cut theice”. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 701–718.

30 Ceci, S. & Williams, W. (2007). “Why aren't more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence”.Washington: APA.

Page 22.1431.24

Appendix: Interview Protocol

Opening StatementsThank you for taking the time to talk to me. I’m going to give you some background onhow this will work.Explain interview logistics

o Our conversation will be recorded and later transcribed. Everything you tell mewill be confidential. All identifying information will be removed on the transcriptand the audio will be kept in a secured location.

o Do you have any questions about the consent form?o Can I get you to sign it if everything seems okay to you?

Structure and purpose of the interviewo The purpose of the interview is for me to understand your experiences as a

returning student in engineering. By “returning student”, I refer to the fact thatyou experienced a gap between your undergraduate and graduate education. Yourexperiences will inform the goals of the study which are to understand thechallenges, strengths, and success strategies characteristic of returning students.This information will be used to influence future education of returning students.

o There are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions I ask you.o I’ll ask follow-up questions so that we can arrive at a deeper understanding of

your experiences.o I’m going to leave some open time after I ask a question. I won’t jump in to

clarify a question if there is a pause. I want to give you time to think. If you needclarification of a question, please ask me.

Do you have any questions for me before we get started?

Demographic questionsI’d like to start by getting a little bit of information about you. How old are you?And how many years passed between the time you received your bachelor’s degree andthe time you returned to school?What were your undergraduate and graduate programs? (possible clarification –mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, etc.)

Preparation for Graduate ReturnTell me about your decision to return to school for a graduate degree.

o What were your goals in getting the degree?o Why did decide to do it now?o Had you thought about going back before?

Can you walk me through your choice of a program and school?o How many different schools did you consider?o How did you choose the schools you thought about?o How did you gather information about the schools?o What programs did you consider?

What kind of advice did you receive on your decision?o Did you seek out advice?o In what ways was it helpful?

Page 22.1431.25

o In what ways was it not helpful?Differences and Challenges

In what ways are you different now than you were right after your undergraduateeducation?

o Can you give me an example of what you mean by…o In what ways has this been an advantage to you?o In what ways has this been a disadvantage?

In what ways are you different from younger students?What do you feel you have in common with younger students?Can you tell me about a particular academic challenge you faced on returning to school?Can you tell me about a particular social challenge you faced as a returning student?

o If time, get a second anecdote for either or both of the previous two questions.

Contributions to SuccessWhat kinds of things were most helpful to you in your studies?

o Did you have any mentors who understood the issues you were dealing with?o Were there particular programs or initiatives at your school that contributed to

your success? (If so, ask about them.)o Were there other students in the same situation you were in?

Tell me about some of the strategies you used to deal with challenges (could mention aspecific challenge if it’s come up earlier).

o Did you work that out for yourself, or was that suggested by someone else?

ClosingDo you have anything else you want to add about your experiences as a returningstudent?Do you have any questions for me?

Page 22.1431.26